Loyalties In Conflict:
Union and Confederate Sentiment
In Barbour County

By John W. Shaffer

Volume 50 (1991), pp. 109-128

West Virginia has often been called the "War Born State," as no
other state began amid such turmoil or was so dependent for its
survival upon the continued existence of the Union as a whole.
Indeed, the creation of West Virginia during the Civil War is
perhaps the central theme of the state's history, with more
attention devoted to its origins than any other aspect. In
attempting to explain West Virginia's formation, early writers,
many direct participants in the events, viewed the state's creation
as a culmination of a half century of struggle between two opposing
societies: the slave-based plantation economy of the east dominated
by aristocratic oligarchies, and a society of small, independent
farmers, democratic and "free," in the west. They concluded the
people of the western counties were overwhelmingly
anti-secessionist and pro-Union at the outbreak of the Civil
War.

This myth was long ago shattered by subsequent research which
showed that in many sections of what eventually became West
Virginia, the sympathies of vast numbers of people were decidedly
pro-secessionist. One important revisionist interpretation of West
Virginia's origins by Richard Orr Curry revealed that the majority
of the population of the southwest, an area encompassing half the
state's counties, supported the Confederacy. Even in the heavily
populated northwest, the stronghold of Union sentiment, large
numbers of people remained loyal to a seceded
Virginia.2

However, Curry's attempt to explain the basis for these
divisions largely echoed the emphasis of previous historians on the
divergent backgrounds of the two sections of the Old Dominion.
Chief among these was a long tradition of political struggle waged
by the western counties for greater representation in the Virginia
legislature, the extension of suffrage, a more equitable tax
structure, and a greater share of state-financed internal
improvements. Although this struggle forced two revisions of the
state constitution, the traditional view holds that the aims of the
west were never fully realized. Western political leaders, as a
result, seized the opportunity afforded by Virginia's secession to
achieve their goals by establishing a new state.

Curry recognized that this explanation by itself left several
questions unanswered, the most important being the southwest's
continued loyalty to Virginia. Like those before him, he cited
several factors which distinguished the northwest from the rest of
Virginia and contributed to the preservation of pro-Union
sentiment. Foremost among these was an agrarian economy that
precluded significant reliance on slave labor. Geared toward a
mixture of cereal production and stockraising, investment in slaves
simply was not feasible in the absence of labor- intensive crops,
such as tobacco and cotton. Moreover, because of the region's river
system, commercial ties were directed north and west, away from
eastern Virginia, ties further strengthened by the industrial
development of Wheeling and the Monongahela River basin.

The role of the Methodist-Episcopal Church has often been cited
as having a decisive influence in limiting the extension of slavery
in the northwest and contributing to pro-Unionist sympathies among
its members. After the division of the church into northern and
southern branches in 1844, an acrimonious struggle for influence
and membership erupted between the two in western Virginia. This
bitter contest intensified the controversy over slavery and
crystallized abolitionist tendencies already inherent within the
northern Methodist Church. When war finally came, large numbers of
ministers and laymen, hardened by more than a decade of struggle,
were unflinching in their support of the Union.3

The final factor almost universally cited by historians was the
distinct ethnic origins of the people who settled the region.
Unlike eastern Virginia, the northwest was said to have been
populated, for the most part, by Scotch-Irish and Germans migrating
from northern and border states. These pioneers brought with them a
culture and ideology strongly nationalistic and opposed to
slavery.4

Barbour County, with its population nearly evenly divided in
their Union or Confederate sympathies, serves as a microcosm of the
divisions which separated the population of West Virginia as a
whole. Created in 1843, Barbour is typical of the counties of the
north-central region of the state. Its economy was overwhelmingly
agrarian, as fully 80 percent of the families listed in the 1860
census were farmers or tenants. Its commercial ties were
predominantly with the East, particularly Baltimore. The county's
primary exports were cattle and other livestock which were shipped
to eastern markets. Virtually all manufactured goods sold within
Barbour were imported from the East rather than the North. There is
little evidence of significant commercial ties with the North. An
iron foundry established in 1848 shipped pig iron to Pittsburgh,
but by 1854 ceased operations. Although large coal deposits existed
within the county, they remained virtually undeveloped for most of
the century.5

Generally, wealth in Barbour County was evenly distributed, as
evidenced by the figures in Table 1, based on the values of real
and personal property reported in the 1860 census. The predominance
of family-operated farms is readily apparent. Fully two-thirds of
Barbour families were headed by landowners, over one-third of whom
owned property valued between five hundred and twenty-five hundred
dollars. The landless, tenant farmers for the most part,
constituted one-third of the families living in the county. This
figure is somewhat misleading, for it includes a number of
merchants and professionals who, while not owning land, were
nonetheless fairly well-to-do. This category also includes the
married children of landowners, who would eventually inherit a
portion of their parents' holdings.

TABLE 1: PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSEHOLD

Property Value

Landowners

Landless

Total

Percentage

less than $499

141

531

672

41.8

$500-$2,499

578

23

601

37.4

$2,500-$4,999

191

2

193

12.0

$5,000-$9,999

87

0

87

5.4

over $10,000

54

0

54

3.4

1,051
(65.4%)

556
(34.6%)

1,607*

100.0

Table compiled from U.S. Census Office. Eighth
Census of the United States, Barbour County, Virginia.

*No values were given for five households.

Every county had wealthy families and Barbour was no exception.
Fifty-four families possessed property valued in excess of ten
thousand dollars and controlled 30 percent of the total wealth
reported for the county. Few of Barbour's middle-class families
possessed sufficient wealth to dominate the economic life of the
county. Only seven individuals owned property worth more than
twenty-five thousand dollars. The wealthiest Barbour County
resident John H. Woodford owned land and property valued at
$77,800, almost twice that of the next wealthiest individual.

The possibility of war was looming by the time the census was
nearing completion. Although not immediately apparent, early 1861
found Barbour County's population sharply divided. Because many of
the county's leading citizens and virtually all county officials
supported secession, Union sympathizers had little chance to
influence political developments in the months preceding the
outbreak of hostilities. When Spencer Dayton, a local attorney,
attempted to speak out in favor of the Union at a mass meeting held
at the courthouse in Philippi, he was removed at gunpoint. From
then on, Union men kept a low profile. Those who did not flee the
county entirely held their meetings in secret. By mid-May,
secessionists organized three companies of volunteers which soon
occupied the principal towns of the county. With such a show of
force, it is not surprising that Barbour voted in favor of
Virginia's secession by a majority of 231.6

Secessionist domination of Barbour County was briefly reinforced
in June 1861 with the arrival of Virginia troops under Colonel
George Porterfield. Ordered by Governor John Letcher to organize
state forces in the northwest to repel an expected invasion from
Ohio, Porterfield was unable to gather more than a few companies
totaling less than one thousand men, most untrained, undisciplined,
and mainly unarmed. Aware that a strong Federal force was
descending upon him Porterfield retreated from Grafton to Philippi,
intending to continue his retreat to better defensive positions in
Randolph County. However, the Federals surprised him on the morning
of June 3 by occupying the heights above the town. When the
Federals opened fire, the Confederates fled in a confused mass into
Randolph County. Miraculously, no one was killed in the brief
skirmish, which West Virginians have labeled the first land battle
of the Civil War.

Except for this footnote in history, Barbour's role in the war
was insignificant. Although Confederate forces again occupied the
county for a few days in 1863, Barbour remained under Federal
control throughout the war; however, that control was never
complete. Confederate raiders, many of them former residents,
frequently infiltrated the county, ambushing wagon trains, robbing
stores, harassing Union sympathizers, and, above all, gathering
recruits. In fact, of 349 men from Barbour who joined the
Confederate army, 137 enlisted after 1861, either by making their
way to Rebel lines or being recruited within the
county.7

In effect, Barbour's primary role in the war was as a recruiting
ground for both sides. This fact makes it worthy of close
examination, as neighbors who lived together in peace for decades
suddenly found themselves enemies. Over four dozen families were
divided in their sympathies, with brother literally fighting
brother.8 For the people of Barbour, the conflict was in
every sense of the term a civil war.

In order to determine the basis of Union and Confederate
sentiment within Barbour, data was gathered on the social,
economic, and religious backgrounds of individuals who directly
participated in the war, either enlisting in the army or serving as
public officials under the Pierpont or Boreman governments. Also
included are those persons whose allegiance can be determined from
public records, local histories, or biographies. Fortunately, a
wealth of biographical information exists on individuals and
families who lived in Barbour during the war. Beginning in the
nineteenth century, local historians began compiling the histories
of West Virginia families. The foremost, Hu Maxwell, Oren Morton,
and Thomas Conduit Miller, either lived in Barbour or neighboring
counties, so the bulk of their studies dealt with people of the
immediate region. Their work constitutes an invaluable resource on
the history of the county.9

Of the 995 individuals included in the study, all lived in
Barbour County during the war. Among Union sympathizers were 465
men who enlisted in the armed forces, 72 who held public office,
and 48 who demonstrated pro-Union sentiments. Confederate
sympathizers included 349 men who enlisted in the army and 61
sympathetic to the Southern cause.10 Despite every
effort to include as many persons as possible in the study, the
individuals examined here obviously do not constitute the total
number of Barbour's residents who counted themselves Union or
Confederate sympathizers. The most glaring omission is that of
women, only nine of whom were included in the study. Although
legally barred from voting, there can be no doubt that women held
very definite views on secession and the war. However, local
histories, written entirely by men, virtually ignore the very
important role they played in the struggle. Women were expected to
carry on their traditional roles as homemakers, albeit in a
decidedly untraditional context. Most of the women included in this
study were those whose sympathies could be confirmed because their
actions overstepped these bounds and could not be ignored by
historians of the era.11

The same could be said with some justification of the men, who
represent only 38 percent of the total male population of the
county over the age of fifteen listed in the 1860 census. This
group includes all whose devotion to the Union or Confederate cause
compelled them to participate actively in the war. Enlistees for
both sides risked their lives for the cause; at least 102 died for
it.12 Public officials served at great risk to their
lives and property, as Confederate commanders were specifically
ordered to apprehend officials of the "bogus" Pierpont and Boreman
governments. County Sheriff James Trayhern and Justice of the Peace
William Price were captured by Confederate raiders.13
Those with pronounced secessionist views suffered equally for their
loyalty to the Old Dominion. Dozens were arrested, many more had
their property confiscated or homes burned, and three were
killed.14 These men and women represented the hard core
of Union and Confederate sentiment in Barbour County.

Given Barbour's social structure, it would be surprising if
marked class distinctions existed between Union and Confederate
sympathizers. Property values, compiled in Tables 2 and 3 from the
1860 census, establishes that the only significant difference
between the two groups was that a higher percentage of Confederates
were drawn from the wealthier families of the county. Of the ten
richest families in Barbour, seven counted members who were either
Confederate sympathizers or soldiers.

TABLE 2: PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION -- UNION
SYMPATHIZERS

Property Value

Landowners

Landless

Total

Percentage

less than $499

59

158

217

38.6

$500-$2,499

206

2

209

36.8

$2,500-$4,999

71

0

71

12.6

$5,000-$9,999

40

0

40

7.1

over $10,000

27

0

27

4.9

403
(71.5%)

160
(28.5%)

564

100.0

Table compiled from U.S. Census Office. Eighth
Census of the United States, Barbour County, Virginia.

TABLE 3: PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION -- CONFEDERATE
SYMPATHIZERS

Property Value

Landowners

Landless

Total

Percentage

less than $499

17

121

138

34.8

$500-$2,499

110

7

117

29.5

$2,500-$4,999

66

0

66

16.5

$5,000-$9,999

38

0

38

9.6

over $10,000

38

0

38

9.6

269
(67.6%)

128
(32.4%)

397

100.0

Table compiled from U.S. Census Office. Eighth
Census of the United States, Barbour County, Virginia.

Note: The numbers examined here do not equal the total examined
in the study as the census failed to give property values for
several families while others moved to the county after the census
was taken.

There is some evidence of class resentment by Unionists against
well-to-do secessionists, many of whom resided in Philippi. After
Porterfield's force was driven from the town, a number of these
families fled with him to the obvious delight of some. "The people
of Philippa were living like kings," one woman declared, "and might
have been yet, if they had behaved themselves." Another wrote of
his pleasure at hearing that, "the people of Philippa who have been
lying on beds of down for so long, are now lying on beds of thorn."
However, it would be a mistake to characterize the county's wealthy
families as united in their support for Virginia's secession.
Woodford's son Asa was wholeheartedly loyal to the Union cause,
helping to raise an infantry regiment for the Pierpont government.
Andrew Miller, the second wealthiest man in Barbour, also counted
himself a loyal Union man and had one son in the Federal army.
Overall, the distribution of property between Union and Confederate
sympathizers was remarkably similar and tended to mirror property
distribution for the county as a whole. In Barbour at least, both
sides drew support from all segments of the county's population,
from landless tenant to the richest proprietor, and in
approximately equal proportions.15

The absence of any significant class distinctions between Union
and Confederate sympathizers is explained by the fact that purely
economic considerations played virtually no role in the issues
which divided the county. The questions which split Barbour society
were essentially political, the chief being secession. In all the
debates, speeches, mass meetings, and resolutions passed in Barbour
during the turbulent months leading up to the secession vote, the
central theme was the issue of whether or not Virginia should join
the seceding states of the South. The campaign statements of Thomas
Bradford and Samuel Woods, the two candidates running for election
to the Richmond Convention in January 1861, were devoted entirely
to the question of secession. Both agreed that Virginia and any
other state of the Union possessed this right. They only differed
in that Bradford urged Virginia's immediate secession while Woods
hoped to avoid so irrevocable a step. Woods was elected because his
position combined elements satisfactory to both sides. Only when it
became clear that Lincoln intended to use force to preserve the
Union, did Woods switch to the secessionist camp and vote in favor
of the ordinance of secession. From that moment on, he was viewed
by Unionists in Barbour as having betrayed their trust and was
singled out for retribution.16

The question of secession was so fundamental that the issue of
slavery played a secondary role. Slavery was a factor in shaping
public opinion in Barbour, but the secession question directly
affected the lives of each person in the county. Slavery was an
incidental element in Barbour's social fabric, touching the lives
of only a handful of people. In 1860 there were thirty-eight
slaveholders in the county owning eighty-eight slaves. Most
slaveowners had only two or three slaves, primarily females used as
domestics by wealthier families. Caroline Boner, with eleven
slaves, was the largest slaveowner in Barbour and the only person
who relied on slave labor to any significant
degree.17

Secessionists used the slave issue as propaganda against Union
supporters. Thompson Surghor, the editor of Barbour's only
newspaper, repeatedly lashed out against "Union shriekers who are
attempting to Abolitionize Virginia." Bradford's campaign statement
castigated northern abolitionists who sent "their hired mercenaries
among us for the express purpose of inciting our slaves to
insurrection" and decried Lincoln as being "openly pledged to the
miserable dogma that the negro is the equal of the white
man."18 These statements inflamed fears that a Union
victory would mean the immediate freedom of all slaves and
propelled many into the Confederate ranks. After the defeat of the
Confederate army at Rich Mountain and Laurel Hill in July 1861,
John Beatty, an officer of Indiana volunteers, noted in his diary
that Rebel prisoners, among them a number of men from Barbour, told
him, "they were deceived and entered the service because they were
led to believe that the Northern army would confiscate their
property, liberate their slaves and play the devil
generally."19

The opposition to slavery similarly compelled others in the
county to oppose secession. Although abolitionist sentiment in
Barbour was by no means widespread, it had adherents. The O'Neal
family was to a man strongly opposed to the institution. James
Proudfoot, one of the county's most prominent citizens, was so
influenced by John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry that he freed his
slaves outright. Captain of the local Home Guard unit Michael
Haller became an ardent abolitionist as a result of the
Lincoln-Douglas debates and was one of only a handful who voted for
Lincoln in 1860. William P. Wilson and his sons, all of whom served
in the Federal army or the West Virginia government, were directly
engaged in the underground railroad, hiding runaway slaves in their
cellar. Emmitt Pittman's support for the Union was shaped by his
own experience of the realities of slavery. As a teenager just
prior to the war, he saw a female slave beaten to death for
claiming to be too ill to work. Pittman declared to an uncle that,
"when I grow up, I will be a Lincoln man." Others equally opposed
to slavery were just as adamant in their support of Virginia's
secession. Samuel Woods' wife Isabella felt keenly that slavery was
an evil, yet was steadfast in her allegiance to Virginia and the
Confederacy. David Lang also opposed slavery and voted against the
ordinance of secession. Nonetheless, he joined the Confederate army
in 1862, rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel, and died fighting
in the Valley Campaign in 1864.20

Perhaps the strongest evidence of the secondary role of the
slavery issue in Barbour was the support for the Union cause among
slaveholders. Although a majority of those who owned slaves were
avowed secessionists, a number were not. Henson Hoff, a slaveowner
in 1860, was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates in
1864. One of his sons served in the government during the war while
another was a Federal army officer. Solomon Leonard, another
slaveowner, served in the West Virginia militia. Seven other
slaveowners had sons who served in various West Virginia
regiments.21

Even among non-slaveowning Unionists there is clear evidence
that slavery had little to do with their support of the Federal
cause. Nathan Taft, one of the most prominent Union men in the
county and personally opposed to slavery, attempted to bring back
slaves who fled to Ohio after the Federal occupation of the county.
He was assisted by David Bryer, another Union man, who wrote to the
governor of Ohio on Taft's behalf urging his help in seeking the
return of runaway slaves. Bryer pointed out that this action would
do much to convince the people of West Virginia that a Federal
victory would not result in the eradication of the
institution.22

If opposition to slavery was not a deciding factor in
influencing sentiment in Barbour, then how influential was the
Methodist-Episcopal Church's position on slavery in generating
support for the Union? There is little doubt that Episcopal
Methodism was widespread in Barbour County, dating back to the
beginning of the century when itinerant preachers visited pioneer
settlements in the region. Although no figures on church membership
for this period exist, the 1860 census reveals its relative
strength. Religious affiliation of some 355 families was noted by
the census enumerator, with 201 identified as members of the
Methodist-Episcopal Church.23

The church, like its individual members, was deeply divided over
slavery and remained so until the eve of the Civil War. In 1844 the
Methodist-Episcopal Church splintered into northern and southern
branches over the question of slave ownership by church bishops.
Individual members had been free to own slaves since 1808. The
division of the church failed to resolve the issue, even within the
northern branch. Agitation over slavery continued throughout the
1850s as abolitionist sentiment in the Northern and New England
conferences exerted pressure to extend the ban on slaveownership to
all members.24

The agitation had the direct effect of increasing membership
within the Methodist-Episcopal Church, South throughout border
areas like western Virginia. Fearful of further encroachments on
membership, the leadership of the Methodist-Episcopal Church, North
resisted any move to alter existing rules governing slaveownership.
The culmination of the struggle came in 1861 when the General
Conference adopted a new rule declaring slavery to be "inconsistent
with the Golden Rule" and admonished "all preachers and people to
keep themselves pure from this great evil." This was as far as the
church ever came to an outright ban on slaveownership, but it was
sufficient to cause massive desertions to the southern branch of
the church.25

The growing abolitionist tendencies within the parent body and
the increasing influence of the Methodist-Episcopal Church, South
placed the West Virginia Conference between two inexorable
pressures. The conference sought to preserve membership by treading
a careful middle ground. Making no effort to alter the 1861 rule,
the conference at the same time refused to concur with it. Thus, on
the eve of Virginia's secession, a significant number of members
were held to the fold only by the most tenuous of
ties.26

The relation between the Methodist-Episcopal Church and Union
sentiment in Barbour County can be determined by comparing the
number of Union and Confederate sympathizers known to have been
members of the church. Biographies, extant church records, and the
1860 census establish some 220 individuals as belonging to the
church. Although a majority of 129 were Union sympathizers, 40
percent were Confederate sympathizers, among them one of the two
Methodist ministers residing in the county at the outbreak of the
war.27

While these figures reveal considerable support for the Union
among Methodist-Episcopal Church members, the fact that a
significant portion supported secession and fought for the South
indicates the influence of the church was not decisive in shaping
sentiment within the county. Indeed, the war effectively split the
church in two. After 1861, control of local churches and meeting
houses passed entirely into the hands of Unionists, who barred
ministers with secessionist views from preaching and expelled
southern sympathizers from the church. After the war, Confederate
veterans established the first southern branch of the church in
Barbour County.28

The Methodist-Episcopal Church was not the only church in the
county grappling with the issue of slavery. The Baptist Church, the
second largest denomination in Barbour, established the first
church in the county in 1795. As with the Methodist-Episcopal
Church, the 1840s were a period of intense agitation among Baptists
as abolitionist sentiment grew in northern congregations. Unlike
the Methodists, however, the Baptists had no national governing
body and an outright schism was thus averted. Although the church's
Foreign and Home Mission Societies divided into northern and
southern branches, individual congregations were independent bodies
and made their own decisions on slavery.29

Close to the Baptist Church in terms of numbers was the
Methodist-Protestant Church. Breaking away from the parent
Methodist-Episcopal Church in the late 1820s over the question of
the authority wielded by bishops, Methodist-Protestant preachers
found fertile ground for gaining adherents in western Virginia.
George Nestor, often called the father of Methodist-Protestantism
in West Virginia, was born and raised in Barbour
County.30

The issue of slavery also created bitter antagonisms within the
Methodist-Protestant Church. Despite attempts by the General
Conference to avoid an outright division, the Northern and Western
conferences severed ties with the Southern conferences in 1858,
revised the church constitution to include clauses condemning
slavery, and barred members from owning or trading in slaves.
Although many leading members of the church in West Virginia were
sympathetic to the position adopted by the Northern conferences,
the West Virginia Conference as a whole refused all overtures to
join, remaining instead with the Southern
conferences.31

The only other significant denominations in antebellum Barbour
County were the United Brethern and German Baptist, or Dunker,
churches. From their inceptions, both had vigorously opposed the
institution of slavery. Existing members were forbidden to own
slaves and new members were expected to give up ownership of slaves
as a condition of joining the church. Indeed, the leadership of the
United Brethern Church in West Virginia was unalterably opposed to
slavery and secession as well. The German Baptists, as one of the
historically pacifist churches, took no official position on
secession. Opposed to any kind of military service (they sought to
limit involvement with government at all levels as much as
possible), members were expected to remain neutral in the
conflict.32

To determine the extent these various denominations influenced
the political allegiance of individual members on the issue of
slavery, the religious affiliations of 264 Union and 245
Confederate sympathizers were obtained from census lists,
biographies, and church records. The results, displayed in Table 4,
reveal a number of interesting trends. The sympathies of Baptists
were almost the exact opposite of Methodists, with the majority
supporting the Confederate cause and a sizable minority remaining
loyal to the Union. Union sympathizers in Barbour perceived the
Baptist Church to be a hotbed of secession and burned one of its
churches to the ground.33

TABLE 4: RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION IN BARBOUR COUNTY (See
note 9)

Denomination

Union

Confederate

Total

Methodist-Episcopal

129

91

220

Baptist

45

69

114

Methodist-Protestant

42

66

108

United Brethern

32

5

37

German Baptist

6

7

13

Presbyterian

0

6

6

Lutheran

6

0

6

Campbellite

3

0

3

Catholic

2

1

3

265

245

510

While membership in the Baptist and Methodist-Episcopal churches
seems to have moderately influenced sympathies, membership in the
Methodist-Protestant Church appears to have had no influence
whatsoever. Despite its adherence to the Southern conferences, and
by implication acceptance of a church constitution protecting
slavery, the distribution of known members almost mirrored that of
the Baptists. Again, although the majority sided with the South,
some 40 percent are known either to have fought in the Federal army
or supported the Union cause.34

Perhaps the most surprising fact revealed by these figures is
the active participation in the war by members of the German
Baptist Church, five of whose members enlisted in the Union army
and seven in the Confederate. The leader of the congregation in
Barbour, Henry Wilson, was an ardent secessionist murdered for his
views. Three of Wilson's sons served in the Confederate army, and
two of them died in Virginia. Certainly, the fundamental
proscriptions against military service of German Baptist faith
failed to overcome more secular demands generated by the
war.35

The United Brethern Church in Barbour was the only denomination
to significantly influence its members on slavery. Those who were
members of the church overwhelmingly supported the Union, with only
two known to have enlisted in the Confederate army, one of whom,
Squire Crouser, later deserted and joined the Federal army.
Otherwise, only slight evidence upholds the conclusion that church
affiliation measurably influenced sentiment in Barbour. While most
Methodists supported the Union and most Baptists the Confederacy,
significant numbers within each church supported the opposite
position. Apparently individual conscience superseded religious
precepts on the burning political issue of
slavery.36

Religion provided some followers with a moral underpinning for
their views on slavery and secession. However, the pronounced
opposition among leaders and ministers of the Methodist-Episcopal
Church merely mirrored equally fervent support for slavery and the
Confederacy among ministers of the southern Methodist Church.

In a society only a generation removed from pioneer conditions,
church affiliation was far more fluid than is often realized. Most
churches in Barbour County were established in the 1840s and 1850s,
some only a year or two before the outbreak of the war. Settlers
whose families were members of a particular church for generations
found no ministers of their faith within miles of their new home.
This was especially true for Lutherans who came to Barbour in the
first decades of the century, and for the large number of Irish
Catholics who settled in the county in the 1850s.37
Conversions to local churches among such groups may not have been
strong and certainly open to speculation. The willingness of the
twelve German Baptists to renounce pacifism clearly indicates that
the precepts of their church paled in comparison to the wartime
crisis.

Far more important than religion in shaping sentiment in Barbour
County were secular influences; the most important was the degree
to which people in the county felt bound by ties of loyalty to the
state of Virginia. In the last analysis, Virginia's secession
demanded that the people of the western counties decide whether
their ultimate allegiance lay with their state or with the United
States. Many of the most prominent Unionists in Barbour were men
who had only recently settled in Virginia. Spencer Dayton, who
represented Barbour County at the first and second Wheeling
Conventions, was born and raised in Connecticut. Dayton's
co-representative Nathan Taft was a native of New York who came to
Barbour in 1848. Martin Myers, who with Dayton drew up the first
resolutions in Barbour opposing secession, was born in
Pennsylvania, as was David Bryer mentioned earlier. Michael Haller,
one of the earliest supporters of Lincoln in the county, was a
native of Maryland.38

While many of the leading Union men in Barbour were northerners
who settled in Virginia, the same cannot be said of the rank-
and-file Unionists of the county. Table 5, showing the birthplaces
of Union and Confederate sympathizers, reveals that, while a number
of Barbour's Union men were born in northern and border states, the
Civil War in the county was a struggle fought mainly between
native-born Virginians.

TABLE 5: BIRTHPLACES OF CIVIL WAR VETERANS IN
BARBOUR COUNTY

Birthplace

Union

Confederate

Virginia

86.1%

98.0%

North*

5.5%

.5%

Border+

7.4%

.5%

Europe

1.0%

1.0%

Number

585

410

Table compiled from U.S. Census Office. Eighth
Census of the United States, Barbour County, Virginia.

*Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,
and the New England states.

+Maryland and Kentucky

Sectional differences between the two groups begin to emerge the
closer one examines the family backgrounds of those born in
Virginia. The birthplaces of the fathers of 488 of the 492 native
Virginia Unionists could be firmly established. Of these, 129, over
one quarter, were the sons of non-native Virginians. The fathers of
48 were born in either Maryland or New Jersey, another 54 in
Pennsylvania, and 17 in New York, Ohio, Maine, Massachusetts, and
Illinois. Ten others were sons of men who emigrated from Europe. In
contrast, 366 of 401 Confederate soldiers and sympathizers born in
Virginia, almost 90 percent, were also the sons of men born in
Virginia. Only 29 had fathers born outside the state, 5 of them in
Europe and the rest in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Kentucky. The birthplaces of 6 fathers could not be determined.

This divergence becomes even greater the farther back one traces
the families of each group. From census records, biographies, and
various other sources, it is possible to determine the birthplaces
of the grandfathers of 553 Union and 379 Confederate sympathizers,
over 90 percent of each group. In Table 6, these findings are
arranged according to the number of generations each person's
family lived in Virginia. The first category includes individuals
from other parts of the country or from Europe who settled in
Virginia, the second, those who were born in Virginia but whose
fathers were non-native Virginians. Second-generation Virginians
were defined as those born in the state whose fathers were also
native Virginians, but whose grandfathers were born outside the
state. Third- generation Virginians were those descended from
grandfathers born in Virginia.39

TABLE 6: FAMILY BACKGROUND OF CIVIL WAR VETERANS IN
BARBOUR COUNTY (See note 9)

Union

Confederate

Not born in Virginia

14.6%

2.1%

First-generation Virginian

23.3%

7.6%

Second-generation Virginian

27.7%

16.4%

Third-generation Virginian

34.4%

73.9%

Number

553

379

The differences between Unionists and Confederates in Barbour
County are readily apparent. Over 70 percent of Confederates were
descended from families who resided in Virginia for at least three
generations, compared to only 34 percent for Unionists. Even these
figures do not reveal the full extent of sectional differences
between the two groups. Of the 91 first- and second-generation
Virginia Confederates, 33, about one-third, were descended from
European immigrants who settled directly in Virginia. Of the 281
Unionists of the same category, only 36, or 12 percent, were the
sons or grandsons of European immigrants. The rest were descended
from men who were born either in the North or in border states.

The defining characteristic of Confederates in Barbour County
was thus a heritage that was almost exclusively Virginian. Their
families had for the most part migrated from eastern Virginia and
were Virginians for generations. Their primary allegiance was to
the birth state of their fathers and grandfathers. As one
Confederate explained when recalling why he enlisted in the Rebel
army, "I was a Virginian as were my people, and when my state went
to war, I saw no other course open but to follow the fortunes of
the Old Dominion."40 John Beatty, the Indiana soldier
quoted earlier, was struck by such attitudes. Near Buckhannon his
men arrested a woman for concealing weapons intended for Rebel
troops. "The woman of the house was very indignant, and spoke in
disrespectful terms of the Union men of the neighborhood. . . . She
said she had 'come from a higher sphere than they, and would not
lay down with dogs.' She was an eastern Virginian . . . poor as a
church mouse."41

So deep-rooted was this allegiance to Virginia that Confederates
actually viewed their state as a nation unto itself. The diary of
James Hall, a Confederate soldier from Barbour, is strewn with
references to Virginia as "our country" and "our native land."
David Lang, who fought and died for the Confederacy despite his
opposition to slavery and Virginia's secession, wrote in similar
terms in letters to his wife, telling her that if the war dragged
on until their sons reached military age, she should "inspire such
patriotism in each of them that they should shoulder their muskets
in defense of their country."42

Loyalty to Virginia among those who were not born in the state
was almost non-existent and in this context, Samuel Woods was a
distinct exception. Born in Canada near the Maine border, Woods was
raised in Pennsylvania before coming to Barbour County in 1849. His
support for states' rights in general and Virginia's secession in
particular were positions which Unionists in Barbour could neither
understand nor forgive. When the war ended and he attempted to
return home, he was met at the county line by a contingent of
citizens who made it clear he was no longer welcome. Woods
nonetheless returned home and was later elected to the West
Virginia Senate. Otherwise, nearly all Northerners in Barbour
remained loyal to the Union, their attitudes about Virginia perhaps
best expressed by Dayton in a letter to Governor Francis Pierpont
in which he declared "Virginia is the meanest State in (or out of)
the Union. . . ."43

For those Union sympathizers who were native Virginians, the
coming of the war posed a fundamental question of whether their
allegiance lay with the state or the national government. The
difficulty of this choice is apparent by the fact that a number of
men from Barbour joined the Federal army after first serving in the
Confederate army. Squire Crouser, William Lemon, Hezekiah Shaw,
Felix Stewart, James Teter, and George Yeager all enlisted in the
Barbour Lighthorse at the beginning of the war and were with
Porterfield at Philippi. All later deserted and joined Federal and
state units. William Kelly and Henry Lohr both joined the Barbour
Greys in 1861. Within a year they had deserted and joined the 10th
West Virginia Infantry, as did John Reed who only a few weeks
earlier had enlisted in the 20th Virginia Cavalry. Granville
Philips joined the 62nd Virginia Mounted Infantry in August 1862,
deserted three months later, and joined the Federal army in
1864.44

However, Virginia-born Unionists were distinguished from their
secessionist neighbors by a heritage that was decidedly
non-Virginian. They were primarily sons and grandsons of settlers
who crossed the Mason-Dixon line into Virginia, pioneers who likely
considered themselves Virginians in name only. Given the
longstanding antebellum grievances over taxation, representation,
and internal improvements, their allegiance to Virginia, what one
Union veteran called "that fatal deity of the Virginians," could
only have been lukewarm at best.45

In effect, the seeds of sectional conflict in Barbour County
were sown decades before the outbreak of the war. For every family
that crossed the Allegheny Mountains from eastern Virginia to
settle in Barbour, there were equal numbers that pushed up the
tributaries of the Monongahela River from Pennsylvania or followed
wagon trails into West Virginia from Maryland or New Jersey. A
large number came from as far away as New England, settling first
on French Creek in Upshur County, their descendants spreading
across the countryside and into Barbour. All shared a common bond
in their search for cheap land. Yet they brought with them
attitudes and traditions of the homes they had left behind which,
when passed from father to son, served to shape political loyalties
and allegiances.

The inescapable conclusion is that Unionists and Confederates in
Barbour County were distinguished primarily by different heritages,
the one Northern, the other Virginian. In the context of an
essentially political struggle over secession, support for the
Union among slaveowners was no more a contradiction than support
for the Confederacy among those opposed to slavery. Those who
fought for the Confederacy did so because they considered
themselves, above all, Virginians, regardless of their personal
views on the slave question. Opposition to secession was rooted
less in any widespread anti-slavery sentiment than in a deep-seated
conviction that the Union had to be preserved at all costs.

4. Curry, A House Divided, 23-27; see also Ambler,
Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861 (1910; reprint,
New York: Russell & Russell, 1964) and West Virginia, The
Mountain State; James C. McGregor, The Disruption of
Virginia (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1922).

5. United States. Bureau of the Census. Eighth Census of the
United States. Barbour County, Virginia. Of 1612 households
enumerated, 991 (61.9%) were headed by farmers and 310 (19.4%) by
tenants. Occupational distribution of the remaining families was:
professional - 25; merchants - 24; craftsmen - 123; government
officials - 8; miscellaneous (boarders, clerks, etc.) - 11. 67
families were headed by widows, most of them almost certainly
farmers. No occupation was given for the heads of 33 families.
George A. Shingleton, History of Mount Morris School, Church and
Cove District (Parsons: McClain, 1976), 318-21, 331-35; Hu
Maxwell, History of Barbour County, West Virginia
(Morgantown: Acme Publishing Co., 1899), 318-19.

6. Maxwell, Barbour County, 237-46; Curry, A House
Divided, 142. The original records of the vote in Barbour have
been lost and there is some disagreement as to the actual results.
The Wheeling Intelligencer reported Barbour as voting 350
against the ordinance. James Morton Callahan, History of West
Virginia, Old and New, vol. 1 (Chicago: American Historical
Society, 1923): 351. Maxwell, not citing any figures, reported the
vote to have been in favor of secession, but only by a slim margin,
Barbour County, 237-46.

7. National Archives. Record Group 109. War Department
Collection of Confederate Records, hereafter RG 109. Dates of
enlistment from payrolls for companies H and K, 31st Virginia
Infantry; companies E and H, 62nd Virginia Mounted Infantry; and
company D, 20th Virginia Cavalry. In addition, a company of cavalry
called the Barbour Lighthorse was recruited in May 1861 but
disbanded the following June.

9. Identifying Barbour's Union and Confederate soldiers first
required knowledge of which army units recruited in the county. For
the Union army, these units included the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th
West Virginia Cavalry regiments, the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th,
12th, 15th and 17th West Virginia Infantry, and the 1st West
Virginia Artillery. Also included were those men serving in the
Barbour Home Guard and officers of the 139th and 169th West
Virginia militia. Confederate army units in which Barbour men
served included the 14th, 18th, 19th and 29th Virginia Cavalry
regiments, the 25th and 31st Virginia Infantry, and the 62nd
Virginia Mounted Infantry. Company rolls were obtained from Francis
P. Pierpont, Annual Report of the Adjutant General, West
Virginia, 1864 (Wheeling: John F. M'Dermot, 1865) and Annual
Report of the Adjutant General, West Virginia, 1865 (Wheeling:
John Frew, 1866); RG 109; Confederate Service Records published in:
Robert J. Driver, Jr., 14th Virginia Cavalry (Lynchburg: H.
E. Howard, Inc., 1988); Roger U. Delauter, Jr., 18th Virginia
Cavalry (Lynchburg: H. E. Howard, Inc., 1985) and 62nd
Virginia Mounted Infantry (Lynchburg: H. E. Howard, Inc.,
1988); Richard L. Armstrong, 25th Virginia Infantry and 9th
Battalion Virginia Infantry (Lynchburg: H. E. Howard, 1990);
and John M. Ashcraft, 31st Virginia Infantry (Lynchburg: H.
E. Howard, 1988). These sources were supplemented by the 1890
Federal Census of Union Veterans. Maxwell's Barbour County
provided invaluable information on Union and Confederate
sympathizers as well as a complete list of county officials serving
during the Pierpont and Boreman administrations.

Local histories provided a wealth of information on sympathizers
and the genealogies of their families. In many instances, these
sources also gave information on church affiliation as well. The
amount of information available on West Virginia families is quite
literally astounding. The principle works consulted for this study
were: Maxwell, Barbour County; Shingleton, Mount
Morris; Barbour County Historical Society, Barbour County,
West Virginia, Another Look (Dallas: Taylor Publishing Co.,
1979); and Mary Stemple Coffman and Ethel Park Stemple,
Footsteps of Our Fathers: Early Settlers of Tacy (Barbour
County) W. Va. (Baltimore, 1978).

County histories with information on Barbour families include:
by Hu Maxwell, History of Randolph County, West Virginia
(Morgantown: Acme Publishing Co., 1898), History of Tucker
County, West Virginia (Kingwood: Preston Publishing Co., 1884),
History of Highland County, Virginia (Monterey, VA: Highland
Recorder, 1922) and History of Pendleton County, West
Virginia (Franklin: the author, 1910); Albert S. Bosworth, A
History of Randolph County, West Virginia (Elkins: no
publisher, 1907); William B. Cutright, The History of Upshur
County, West Virginia (Buckhannon: no publisher, 1907);
Biographical and Portrait Cyclopedia of Monongalia, Marion and
Taylor Counties (Philadelphia: Rush, West, and Co., 1895);
Samuel T. Wiley, History of Preston County, West Virginia
(Kingwood: Journal Printing House, 1882) and History of
Monongalia County, West Virginia (Kingwood: Preston
Publishing Co., 1883); Minnie Kendall Lowther, History of
Ritchie County (Wheeling: Wheeling News Litho. Co., 1911); E.
L. Judy, History of Grant and Hardy Counties, West Virginia
(Charleston: Charleston Publishing Co., 1951); William T. Price,
Historical Sketches of Pocahontas County, West Virginia
(Marlinton: Price Bros., 1901); Robert L. Pemberton, A History
of Pleasants County, West Virginia (St. Marys: The Oracle
Press, 1929); and John D. Sutton, History of Braxton County and
Central West Virginia (Sutton: no publisher, 1914).

These local sources were supplemented with county marriage
records for Barbour (1842-1865) obtained from the archives of the
Church of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. Also of use was
Ross B. Johnston, West Virginia Estate Settlements,
1753-1850 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1977). Of
particular value in tracing individuals who either settled in
Barbour from other counties or moved from Barbour after the war
were the 1850 census schedules published by William Guy Tetrick:
Census Returns of Barbour and Taylor Counties (Clarksburg:
no publisher, 1932); Census Returns of Lewis County
(Clarksburg: no publisher, 1930); Census Returns of Harrison
County (Clarksburg: no publisher, 1930); and Census Returns
of Doddridge, Ritchie and Gilmer Counties for 1860 (Clarksburg:
no publisher, 1933). Of considerable help were the census schedules
for 1880 published by William B. Marsh, 1880 Census of West
Virginia (Parsons, 1979-1990). This census is of particular
importance in that it was the first to provide not only the
birthplace of each person, but those of their parents as well.

10. See note 9 above.

11. An example is Matilda Humphreys. On the morning of the
attack on Philippi, she tried to send her sons into town to warn
Porterfield of the arrival of the Federal army. When he was
stopped, she pulled a pistol and fired into the troops. It is
related that the shot was mistakenly assumed by the Federal troops
on the other side of town to have been the signal to commence the
attack. As a result, the troops near the Humphreys home were not in
position and Porterfield's men were able to escape. Maxwell,
Barbour County, 256n.

12. Twenty-two Federal soldiers from Barbour were either killed
in action or died of wounds; another 22 died of disease while in
the service. Pierpont, Adjutant General Report, 1864 and
1865. The total number of deaths among Barbour's Confederate
soldiers will never be known due to a lack of complete records.
Available sources list a total of 32 killed in action; 17 died of
disease. Three Confederate civilian sympathizers in Barbour were
shot to death and another 2 died in prison.

13. Price was arrested during General William Jackson's abortive
attack on Beverly in July 1863 and held in prison in Richmond until
the following March. Hardesty's Historical and Geographical
Encyclopedia, Calhoun County (H. H. Hardesty and Co., 1883),
28. Trayhern was kidnapped from his home by Imboden's men in
January 1863 and remained in Richmond almost until the end of the
war. Maxwell, Barbour County, 267n.

14. Michael Crim was killed by men of the 2nd Virginia Infantry
in October 1861 for allegedly aiding local guerrillas who had
ambushed the unit. Francis S. Reader, Second Virginia
Infantry (New Brighton, PA: F. S. Reader, 1890), 51 and Ruth
Woods Dayton, Samuel Woods and His Family (no publisher,
1939), 49. Henry Bowman and Henry Wilson were killed for having
allegedly aided in the kidnapping of Trayhern. Maxwell, Barbour
County, 267n.

15. Dayton, Samuel Woods, 41. Locals often referred to
the county seat as "Phillippa," which was its original name.
Maxwell, Barbour County, 504.

24. John N. Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist-Episcopal
Church, 1844 (New York: Alfred University, 1923), 291; William
Warren Sweet, The Methodist-Episcopal Church and the Civil
War (Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern Press, 1912),
34-36.

27. Much of the information on church membership was obtained
from published biographies listed in note 11. Additional sources
included I. A. Barnes, The Methodist-Protestant Church in West
Virginia (Baltimore: The Stockton Press, 1926); David Benedict,
A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America
(New York: no publisher, 1848); and John J. Lafferty, Sketches
of the Virginia Conference, Methodist-Episcopal Church, South
(Richmond: no publisher, 1894). The preacher was Dr. Abraham
Hershman, arrested on the order of Governor Pierpont to be held
hostage until Sheriff Trayhern was returned by Confederate
authorities.

28. Dayton, Samuel Woods, 69. Although the Southern
Methodists had established circuits at Clarksburg and Rowlesburg
prior to the war, the first churches organized in Barbour were
established in the 1870s. Barbour County Historical Society,
Barbour County . . . Another Look, 70; Hardesty, Barbour
County, 214-21.

44. Only one man from Barbour, Baylis Cade, is known to have
deserted from the Union to the Confederate army. David Poe,
Personal Reminiscences of the Civil War (Charleston: The
News-Mail Publishing Co., 1908), 31.